THE USCCB SHOULD ABANDON THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE AND GIVE US A BIBLE WITH A GOOD TRANSLATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

DECEMBER 11, 2019

What We’ve Lost in Translation

ANTHONY ESOLEN

CRISIS MAGAZINE

Word is that the USCCB is going to tweak the New American Bible but leave it in place as the basis for the lectionary. Please, your excellencies, give it up. The NAB is a train wreck. It cannot be salvaged. It is, by turns, drab, ungrammatical, clumsy, and stupid. It turns good verbs into verbal nouns. Unlike Hebrew and good English, it prefers the abstract to the concrete, the general to the specific, and the vague to the precise. It twists itself into semantic pretzels to avoid the masculine in pronouns, nouns, and metaphors; but it cannot avoid them altogether, so it merely adds inconsistency to its other many faults. Get rid of it. The English Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version are available. They aren’t perfect, but they are tolerable at least, and often very good.

“Surely, Dr. Esolen,” someone will object, “you must be exaggerating. It may be drab, but it can hardly be stupid.

“You’ve never read academic writing,” I reply. A ten-year-old boy writing about riding his bicycle around town will probably write naïvely, but he will be lively enough. He will not have acquired the academic habit of not considering what his words mean. The boy will write about real things—shops, hills, trees, dogs, bridges, brakes, and streets. The academic often must be rapped on the head with a beanbag to see things.

Let me give an example from the lectionary last week. It’s the vision of Nebuchadnezzar as recounted in the book of Daniel. The king dreamed of a man whose head was “of fine gold, its breast and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay.” This is the RSV, echoing the earlier English versions which gave us the phrase, “feet of clay,” to describe someone who cannot be relied on in a crisis, or something that seems staunch but is, in fact, ready to topple. Here is the NAB: “The head of the statue was pure gold, its chest and arms were silver, its belly and thighs bronze, the legs iron, and the feet partly iron and partly tile.” Tile? 

What’s a tile? It is clay baked into a standard shape, usually flat, sometimes rounded. What prompted the translators to write “tile”? You can’t make a statue or the foot of a statue out of tile, in English, any more than you can form its face out of brick. What might a statue made of tile look like? No image comes to my mind—unless it’s of some uncouth modernist thing, with angles sticking out everywhere—because tiles are tiles and not clay which can be formed into any shape you wish.

Another example is from the lectionary for the feast of Christ the King. One of the thieves crucified at the side of Christ is mocking him, and the other thief feels a pang of conscience. “We are receiving the due reward of our deeds,” he says, “but this man has done nothing wrong” (RSV); “And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what our deeds deserved; but this man has done nothing wrong” (Douay-Rheims-Challoner). I suppose that if you are hanging on a cross, you will come straight to the point. Now the NAB: “And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Corresponds? Nothing criminal? Who talks this way? A lawyer arguing before an appellate court, maybe. A professor, probably. A thief on a cross? The translators cannot have considered the drama of the specific situation.

But then they never do. They dwell in a fog of ideas. They do not feel the passions they try to describe. They are never present to the people and the scene. Think of the moment of Jesus’s death. How would you describe it? Saint Luke winds his narrative to the climax: “It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit!’ And having said this he breathed his last. Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God and said, ‘Certainly this man was innocent!’ ” (RSV).

How can you spoil a moment like this? And when you are free to take from other translations all that you wish, too! Well, you turn the lyrical into the technical; you turn verbs into verbal nouns; you eliminate the little words that lead from image to image or thought to thought; and you muffle the emphatic by tucking it away in the middle of a sentence: “It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon because of an eclipse of the sun. Then the veil of the temple was torn down the middle. Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”; and when he had said this he breathed his last. The centurion who witnessed what had happened glorified God and said, “This man was innocent beyond doubt” (NAB).

Notice the distracting and clumsy rhyme: noon, afternoon. Notice how the failure of the sun—this is what the Greek says—is rendered technical, just as the numbers of the hours are rendered colloquial. Does Saint Luke say that the sun was in eclipse? No, he doesn’t. He says that the sun failed; this might have been an eclipse, but it might not. He is not thinking of the relative positions of the sun and moon and earth. That, too, would be a distraction here, an anticlimax. Notice that the NAB dislocates events which Luke knits together in a dramatic whole: the passage of the hours, the darkness, the failure of the sun, and the tearing of the curtain in the temple. Notice the ham-handed relative clause in the final sentence separating the subject centurion from the verb glorified; there is no good reason for this. Notice the final words in NAB: without doubt. Why the negative construction? Why introduce a hidden verb, to doubt? It’s not in the Greek. So why end with those words? The Greek and the RSV end on what the evangelist emphasizes: dikaios en, “was innocent.”

Your excellencies, the problems are not here and there, this and that. Every time I go to Mass, I must hear something put in a way that is either stupid or awkward or misleading—every time. A week or so ago, it was Saint Paul writing to the Thessalonians: “In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.” That one? That one what? We use that one in opposition to this one, or to specify someone in a group: “Do you see that man with the cap and bells? He translated the Bible for Catholics.” Neither use is in play here. The man has already been singled out. He’s someone who won’t work. To call him that one simply to avoid saying he, isn’t archaic English, contemporary English, formal English, or colloquial English. It isn’t any English at all. No one speaks that way, and no one has ever spoken that way. No one writes that way, and no one but the NAB translator has ever written that way.

In the Greek, and in any sensible English translation, what Paul says should sound like a proverb: “If any man will not work, neither let him eat” (Challoner); “If any one will not work, let him not eat” (RSV). Clear and crisp, and not half-smothered in a noun clause.

The whole passage was a bungle. I will place the NAB next to the Challoner. Note that even though the Challoner uses language that harks back to early modern English, it is still the more direct, the more vivid, and the clearer in its progression of thought:

We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
And we charge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they [sic] received from us.
to withdraw yourselves from every brother who lives irregularly, and not according to the teaching received from us.

For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; for we were not unruly while with you,

nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you.
neither did we eat any man’s bread at his cost, but we worked night and day in labor and toil, so that we might not burden any of you.

Not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us.
Not that we did not have the right to do so, but that we might make ourselves an example for you to imitate us.

In fact, when we were with you we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one [sic] eat.
For indeed when we were with you we used to charge you: if any man will not work, neither let him eat.

We hear that some are conducting themselves among you in a disorderly way, by not keeping busy but minding the business of others.
For we have heard that some among you are living irregularly, doing no work but busy at meddling.

It’s no wonder we find it so hard to hear the words of Paul from the pulpit. What I have cited above is typical of the NAB when the translators are not skating near to heresy or doing their best to muffle the text. Please, bishops, put the undead to rest.

Photo credit: Shutterstock.com/Vibe Images

Tagged as New American Bible39

Anthony Esolen

By Anthony Esolen

Anthony Esolen, a contributing editor at Crisis, is a professor and writer-in-residence at Northeast Catholic College. Dr Esolen has authored several books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization(Regnery Press, 2008), Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child (ISI Books, 2010) and Reflections on the Christian Life (Sophia Institute Press, 2013).

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Renunciation of Pope Benedict DID NOT effect the loss of the Papal Office. He remains the Pope, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Pontiff with all rights and privileges, all prerogatives and powers, graces and carisms, BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT RENOUNCE THE PAPACY BY WORDS, YOU HAVE NOT RENOUNCED THE PAPACY!

My Meeting with the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

Dec11by The Editor

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/my-meeting-with-the-secretary-of-the-pontifical-council-for-legislative-texts/

I write this post to publicly thank Mons. Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, Titular Bishop of Civitate, who was appointed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI as Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

I met with him this morning at 9:45. The meeting lasted about 75 minutes. I did not record the meeting, but want to share with everyone what I remember of it, because of its great importance to the life of the Catholic Church.

I began by saying that I had come to discuss the interpretation of law (interpretatio iuris) or more specifically the right to interpret canonical acts (ius interpretandi). Bishop Arrieta is an expert on this matter, having served in the capacity of a Professor of Canon Law since 1984 at the Pontifical University of Santa Croce, and from 2003 to 2008 at the Preside of the “St Pius X” Institute of Canon Law at Venice, and as Canonist to the Apostolic Penitentiary. Since February of 2007, he has served in the Pontifical Council as its Secretary. This title does not mean he is a secretary, but rather, the Vice President as it were to the Council.

I want to remark on the gentleness and noble demeanor of the Bishop, who never used any hominems, never lost his patience and showed himself willing to discuss the most impolitic issues, from the point of view of canon law, in the Church.

I began my questions with a preface, and with the Bishop’s permission read to him my entire article, entitled, ¡Viva Guadalajara! which was published, here, at the From Rome Blog, this morning.

During the reading, the Bishop could not hide his amusement at the fictitious story, but as I moved to my comments on how this story applies not only to the first moments of a papacy but also to the last, that is, to a Papal renunciation, the amusement on his face disappeared instantly. — Nevertheless, he continued to be polite.

He confirmed for me the following facts:

  1. To his knowledge, there was no meeting of canonists in February of 2013 which discussed the validity of the Act of Renunciation, nor whether a renunciation of ministerium effected a renunciation of munus.
  2. To his knowledge, Pope Benedict XVI never explained himself to any Cardinal or canonists in private as to whether his act effected a renunciation of the petrine munus or office.
  3. To his knowledge, no act of interpretation of the Renunciation was ever promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI.
  4. Bishop Arrieta did admit that he was asked questions regarding the Renunciation, on Feb. 11, 2013, but no question regarded the use of the term ministerium instead of munus.

He also confirmed for me these points of law:

  1. If anyone heard Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013 explain or officially interpret his Act of Renunciation as an act of renouncing the munus, and left a sworn testimony to the fact, this would have no juridical value whatsoever. That is it would not make or alter the signification other than it is.
  2. An act of papal Renunciation is not subject to the interpretation of anyone in the Church. That is, no one has the right to interpret it.
  3. An act of papal Renunciation, therefore, must be certain in itself. If it is not certain, it is invalid.
  4. There is no Canon in the Code of Canon Law which predicates the term ministerium of an ecclesiastical office.
  5. What Ganswein said at the Gregorian University — he admitted he had not read the text of Ganswein in full or in the original — is impossible, since the Papal Office is theologically incapable of being held by more than one man at a time.
  6. It is canonically impossible that two persons hold he Petrine Munus at the same time.
  7. The Roman Curia shares in the Petrine Ministerium, but not the Petrine Munus.
  8. There can only be one pope.
  9. The Pope is subject to Divine Law and cannot split the office.
  10. Canon 1331 §2, n. 4 does allow an excommunicated person to hold a ministry in the Church, but that there is a reform of the Penal Code in the works and that this is something that will be addressed.
  11. Canon 332 §2 requires a verbal renunciation, not a renunciation which is signified by gestures or after the fact statements.
  12. The supreme theological and legal principle for interpretation of canonical acts is the teaching of Jesus Christ, where He said, “Let your yes be Yes, and your no, No, anything else comes from the Devil” (Mt. 5:37)

Now Bishop Arrieta did not agree with me in everything. He made it clear to me that he holds the following positions:

  1. The Renunciation of Pope Benedict was certain and clear.
  2. The Renunciation clearly signified the renunciation of the office of the papacy.
  3. It is morally impossible in the judgement of Bishop Arrieta, based on his knowledge of the man, Ratzinger, that Pope Benedict intended to deceive anyone by pretending to resign one thing instead of the other.
  4. Canon 332 §2, as regards the requirements of liberty and due manifestation, is not talking about a renunciation of the petrine munus.
  5. The necessity in a papal renunciation is a renunciation of the papal office, not of the petrine munus, which is a canonical term which does not adequately reflect the theological reality.
  6. In the Code of Canon Law there is no clear distinction between munus and ministerium.

Regarding this 4th position of the Bishop, I must say I tried to get a word in edgewise to object to such a patently false statement, as if conditions for validity for an act of renunciation of munus only regard the act of renouncing and not the object which is to be renounced. I think the Bishop just said this out of desperation because it is logically absurd on the face of it, as you cannot read part of a sentence which regards conditions for validity and ignore what was said as the fundamental condition for the occurrence or discernment of the occurrence of the act in question!

Regarding the 5th position, I disagree, because Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ, by promulgating the Code imposed upon the whole Church the canonical obligation of understanding it in accord with Canon 17, not as defective in anything. Therefore, an interpretation of canon 332 §2 which implies a defect, cannot be authentic.

I won’t respond here to n. 6, since I have devastatingly refuted it in the recent Academic Conference at Rome, the excerpt of which I published on this very topic, here.

What left me unsatisfied about our conversation is that I asked a lot of questions, but Mons. Arrieta could not give me answers. Here are some of my question, not verbatim, but according to their sense, that the Bishop did not or could not answer:

  1. If it is clear that Pope Benedict resigned his office, can you explain to me canonically how he did that if he never mentioned the office or the Petrine Munus?
  2. If Canon 41 gives to every priest the discretion and right to evaluate the Papal Act of Renunciation before deciding to stop naming Benedict in the Canon of the Mass, as the Pope, why it is canonically wrong if he exercise this discretion, judge the act nullus and continue to name Benedict?
  3. If no one has the right to interpret the Papal Act, how can you explain why nearly everyone in the Hierarchy holds that it effected a renunciation of the Papal Office, if nowhere in the Act did Pope Benedict say I renounce the office or the munus? Is that not an interpretation?
  4. While I am willing to concede out of respect for Pope Benedict that he did not maliciously intend to deceive, is it not possible he was in substantial error when he resigned one thing and not the other?
  5. Does not our loyalty to Jesus Christ, Who bound Himself to observe Canon Law, require us to consider as possible that the Pope be in error in thinking he can resign part of the papal prerogatives and keep the rest? or was wrong in desiring to bifurcate the papacy?
  6. Does not the historical facts that 1) Pope Benedict XVI before his elevation to the Papacy knew of the desires of many German theologians to split the papal office along the lines of the petrine munus and the petrine ministry, and 2) the strange way of renouncing the ministry, but not the munus, coupled with 3) the testimony of Ganswein his personal secretary, who should know the mind of the Holy Father, produce the most sound forensic testimony that the Pope did intend to bifurcate the Papal Office and should be corrected by the Church, even if we personally hold that he had no such intention by way of supposition and respect for his person?

The Bishop closed by remarking that my approach to the reading of the Act of Renunciation was strange to him, that he has never considered this problem before, that he has never read about this controversy, but that I had given him “much to think about”.

CONCLUSION

The sum of what Mons. Arrieta told me leads me to conclude the following:

  1. The Act of Renunciation was presumed from the start to be a renunciation of the Papacy, without any consideration of the discrepancy of renouncing the ministerium instead of the munus, as if the Code of 1917 were operative, and not the Code of 1983.
  2. There has never been any canonical reflection on the canonical value of the Act of Renunciation by anyone known to Bishop Arrieta.
  3. There is no canonical arguments for the validity of the renunciation to effect a loss of the Papal Office, because the interpretation is simply a presumption based on an extrinsic method of reading the act (as I point out in my previous article), which is the most unauthentic and error prone method of interpretation.
  4. The opinion of No Cardinal or Bishop or Priest on this matter constrains anyone in the Church to accept it, because no one has the right to say that the Papal Act means something other than it expressly says.
  5. The Renunciation of Pope Benedict DID NOT effect the loss of the Papal Office. He remains the Pope, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Pontiff with all rights and privileges, all prerogatives and powers, graces and carisms, BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT RENOUNCE THE PAPACY BY WORDS, YOU HAVE NOT RENOUNCED THE PAPACY!

Finally, I do want to thank the Bishop for his patience. Several times in the 75 minutes we spent discussing this most important matter, he remarked he had other duties, but stayed anyhow when what I said was substantial and presented a line of argumentation which he felt necessary to respond to.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The very fact that the question “Why is God allowing this to happen to us?” is not seriously being asked and examined within traditional Catholic circles is in itself the most powerful evidence of a blindness which is now almost universal.

New post on Rosary to the Interior: For the Purification of the Church
1866-2by admin 
The Signs of the Times:And the Blindness of Traditional Catholics

http://rosarytotheinterior.com/1866-2/


“When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. And in the morning: Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?” (Mt. 16:3).“The men of Nineve shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas is here.” (Mt. 12:41, Luke 11: 32).“And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark. And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall be coming of the Son of man be.” (Mt. 24: 37-39).

An extraordinary blindness and superficiality now reigns in the world of traditional Catholic media, and thus presumably, in the minds and hearts of virtually all of those who wish to be considered traditional Catholics. This superficiality reigns in regard to four  areas: 1) understanding the depths and threat of the current crisis within the Church; 2) a virtual total absence of the question as to why God is allowing this chastisement upon us; 3) an equally extensive failure by those who consider themselves orthodox and traditional Catholics to look to their own adulteries with this world as also being responsible for this chastisement; 4) the virtual universal failure to understand the “one thing necessary” for deliverance from the apocalyptic evil that is descending upon us. 

The Depths of the Crisis
Having witnessed the words and actions of Pope Francis and his many collaborators and apologists in recent years, it was not difficult for the traditional Catholic media to predict that the Amazonian Synod was being prepared to overturn, or at least severely compromise, many traditional Catholic beliefs and praxis. Much was written in the weeks and months preceding the Synod about agendas for such things as a married priesthood, female deacons and priests, inculteration of pagan belief and practices (including worship), liberation theology, etc.Since the closing of the Synod, most of this media attention has focused on the pagan events in regard to the Pachamama statues, venerated (and worshipped) in the Vatican Gardens (with the personal blessing of Pope Francis) and other places in Rome. The primary focus of the traditional Catholic media has thus come to focus on the horror of inclusion within the Church (especially with the blessing and justifications rendered by Pope Francis and other members of the hierarchy) of pagan worship and idolatry, especially associated with the secular agenda of an “integral ecology” which is to be identified with a worship of “Mother Earth”. All of this, in conjunction with Pope Francis’ embrace of the statement of the Abu Dhabi Declaration that “the diversity of religions is willed by God”, has of course also added fuel to belief that the ultimate goal of these efforts is the Masonic dream of one-world government and one-world religion.The question, however, presents itself: What is the ultimate object of this idolatry and blasphemous unity? We would certainly be naïve to believe that, in justifying and blessing the Pachamama statues and the accompanying worship of it as some sort of Mother-Earth goddess, Pope Francis and his supporters are identifying such pagan worship as the end-point of their agenda. Nor do we reach the depths of this agenda by seeing it only as the Church surrendering to one-world Masonic ideals. Something much more perverse and occult has established itself deep within what Pope Pius X called the vital energy of the Church in order to explain this prostitution.As explored in a number of our articles (individually linked below in our Course of Study)this something is the establishment of the Cosmic Evolutionary Theology of Teilhard de Chardin as the new theology within the Church.

It should have been obvious, especially as analyzed in our recently published article, A Love That Maketh A Lie: Amoris Laetitia and the Teilhardian Agendathat theimmediate target of all the horrific errors promoted by Pope Francis and his supporters is the well-defined Catholic doctrine concerning charity as applying to that state of the soul which is established in the friendship of God (sanctifying grace). It is of course totally illogical and self-contradictory to believe that there are conditions which would allow divorced and remarried persons to receive Holy Communion (thus committing the objective sin of sacrilege) if one believes in such a concept of the soul and its necessary possession of charity (sanctifying grace) for the reception of Holy Communion. The same is also true of such grave sins as homosexuality, so-called gay marriage, any inclusion of pagan idolatry and practices into the Catholic Church, the promotion of any objectively grave errors in regard to Catholic dogma, or of any objectively grave moral sins. Any pastoral policies promoting inclusiveness towards individual persons or religions living in such grave errors and mortal sin could only be embraced if the possession of charity has ceased to be viewed as a state of the soul, and instead has become identified with a universal unmerited and unconditional mercy considered as being necessary for inclusion of all human beings in an evolutionary ascent towards the Omega Point of Godhead. This is the fundamental heresy expressed in Amoris Laetitia. And it is the necessary conclusion of Teilhardian Cosmic Evolutionary Theology: a theology through which all Catholic philosophy, theology, and praxis must be transformed into evolutionary becoming at the total expense of the concepts of real being and fixed nature. 

In other words, while the immediate target for destruction is the concept of the human soul possessing a fixed nature which requires the possession of sanctifying grace in order for it to be in the friendship of God, the ultimate target is the immutable nature of God and His immutable Revelation. As Teilhard de Chardin wrote:“What, on the other hand, do we find if our minds can embrace simultaneously both contemporary neo-Christianity and contemporary neo-Humanism, and so first suspect and then accept as proved that the Christ of Revelation is none other than the Omega of Evolution?”“It is Christ, in very truth, who saves, – but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who is saved by Evolution?” (The Heart of Matter, p. 92)Such is the dynamic of what now descends upon us. It is the only possible explanation for the inversion of the Catholic Faith which now is being promoted at the highest levels of the Church.

In being blind to this depth, traditional Catholic media, and members of the hierarchy and the Catholic intelligentsia whom they go to for wisdom on this crisis, are wading in the shallows while a tsunami is on the horizon.But we have not yet penetrated to the depths of the present blindness, simply because we have yet to understand its causes. 

Why Has God Done This?

If we truly believe that God loves the Church as His own Bride, and that Christ truly loves the Church as his own Mystical Body; if we truly believe that Christ is still being faithful to His promise “”Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt. 28: 20); and, especially, if we also truly believe in Christ’s words to Peter (and by necessary inference, to his successors in the Papacy) “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, then we are faced with what should be the totally obvious question: “Why has God done this to us?”

Any serious study of the Church’s history reveals that the Church has traveled a road in constant tension between blessing and curse, renewal and decay, strength and weakness. God’s extraordinary gifts are received at certain periods of this history through saints, great Popes, Church Councils, grace-filled movements among the laity, etc. For a short while a renewal of the Church seems to be accomplished, and then decay rapidly sets in. Corruption of belief and morals set their teeth into the Church’s life, and God no longer seems to answer our prayers. St. James offers a very succinct explanation for this phenomenon: “You seek and receive not; because you ask amiss: that you may consume it on your concupiscences.” (James 4: 3). We tend to think of this as being true of worldly goods and blessings. But it must be even more true of spiritual blessings, all of which are gifts of God – the Church, and all that it teaches and practices, including the particular forms of the Mass and the other sacraments.

And, of course, probably the most effective means which God has of either blessing or chastising us through the Church is the Papacy. As St. Gregory the Great is reputed to have said, “Divine justice provides shepherds according to the just deserts of the faithful.” If we take such a statement at all seriously, then there should be no point in the entire history of the Church, as does the present moment and Papacy, when even those who wish to consider themselves faithful Catholics should feel the call of the Holy Spirit to profound self-examination. Such self-examination among those who now consider themselves to be the most faithful of Catholics seems astonishingly absent.In the Gospel of St. John, Our Lord makes the following promise in regard to the Holy Spirit:“But when he, the spirit of Truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come he shall shew you.” (John 16:13).

It should be clear that it is the will of Our Lord that the Holy Spirit should always be with His Church, guiding and protecting it from invasion by the spirit of Antichrist. The very fact that these graces now seem to be so impotently received and lived in the face of this spirit of Antichrist, emanating from both within and without the Church and bent upon destroying her, should automatically turn us inward seeking the source of the blockage which is producing this impotency. The very fact that the question “Why is God doing this to us?” is not seriously being asked and examined within traditional Catholic circles is in itself the most powerful evidence of a blindness which is now almost universal.* 

The “Languor of Nature”

“No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (Mt. 6: 24)Recently, in discussing the lukewarmness which has largely characterized the lack of response to the effort Rosary to the Interior: For the Purification of the Church, a close friend offered the following profound observation: “I think that the heart of lukewarmness is the cozy dwelling in double- thinking, generated from avoiding the drive to the end of a thought.”We have already explored this “avoiding the drive to the end of a thought” in relation to both understanding the depths of our present crisis, and also the failure to ask the absolutely vital and obvious question as to why God is doing this to us. This in turn leads to a final question: “Wherein lies that “double-thinking” which immerses us in that fog of lukewarmness which prevents us from possessing the intellectual light necessary to achieve this understanding or ask this question?”

The effort which we have entitled Rosary to the Interior: For the Purification of the Church is entirely devoted towards eliciting a united cry from all of us for whatever it takes for Our Lady’s Victory to be accomplished for the Purification of the Church, and in order that the Light of Christ might once again become visible and radiant within His Church. It is in the very nature of such a “single-minded” cry, however, that it must proceed from the depths of personal self-knowledge of our own sinfulness and helplessness.It is the lack of such self-knowledge, and the hypocrisy which is its natural fruit, which prevents such a cry from arising in our hearts because it establishes us in the luxury of being comfortable in saying “They have sinned”, rather than “We have sinned”.This double-thinking in the intellectual realm is rooted in all the violations of the living of the Beatitudes (especially as manifested in possession of, and attachment to, the goods of this world), which is nourished, sustained, and has now entered into an exponential state of growth through the power of money, science and technology.

As we have pointed out in our article St. Francis of Assisi: They Pretended to Love You So That They Might Leave Youthe betrayal of the great gift of St. Francis and his ideal of poverty (not only as applied very literally to his own Order, but also in its less-strict, but very real, application to Christian civilization as a whole) preceded the betrayal of the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas, and its absolute necessity for confronting the intellectual and scientific errors of the modern world. The profoundly vitiated collective heart of a still apparently Christian civilization, immersed in the world and poisoned in its depths by the betrayal of the Beatitudes of Christ, was the soil in which the darkness of man’s “scientific” ascent to Godhead was cultured, and which now finds its completed formulation in Teilhardian Cosmic Evolutionary Theology.Everything is now saturated and being kept afloat on a sea of money. Even among Traditional and Conservative Catholics, their “work” is almost completely dependent upon the flow of money, and the connections and power which are gained through money – the realms of commercialism, influential contacts, Benefits, Galas, diplomacy, building efforts, and of course right down to that level of power in this world which now seems the most powerful vehicle and weapon upon which Mammon now depends: the Media. And, ironically, we are total amateurs at all this worldly business in comparison to Satan and his minions. We should be able to hear him laughing at such things as “Cruise-Ship Retreats”, all the much-touted Catholic Conferences, an unending array of petitions, “”Open Letters”, and all the efforts of “traditional media giants” to stop this plunge into darkness.

All of this comes down to the term which both St. Augustine and St. Thomas used to characterize the primary effect of original sin: the languor of nature. Adam’s Original Sin itself was not such a languor, because the very word itself speaks of a state of disordered nature which was not present in the state of integrity which existed before the Fall. The act of original sin in itself had to therefore consist in a very deliberate act of intellectual pride (the intellectual will) seeking an excellence above man’s nature which detracted from God (“you shall be as Gods, knowing Good and evil”).But it is the “fallen nature” (and its threefold concupiscence), established in man as a consequence of this sin, which constitutes such languor of nature, and which down through history has created the web of material acquisitions, science, technology, and all the complexities of modern civilization which continually, and ever more deeply, lower the minds and hearts of even the “faithful” into this world, and consequently into duplicity, hypocrisy, and their ultimate fruit: lukewarmness and the eventual denial of God. It is this languor of nature, which has produced the pharisaical hypocrisy of traditional Catholics, and which leaves us relatively cozy in identifying the sources of the present crisis in the Church with the beliefs and actions of anyone other than ourselves.It is precisely here where the necessary “end of the thought” is aborted, where duplicity roots us in the comfort of self-righteousness, and we fail to unite as did the Ninevites in a cry to Our Lady for that self-purification which is a pre-requisite for the purification of the whole Church.

Lately, our thoughts keep returning to that marvelous scripture in Deut. 6: 4-8:Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength. And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: And thou shalt tell them to thy children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising. And thou shalt bind them as a sign on thy hand, and they shall be and shall move between thy eyes.”The extraordinary thing is that this instruction was given by God long before Christ’s Sacrifice, and the restoration of man to the possibility of sanctifying grace and friendship with God. This speaks to the fact that such purifying fire of desire (the very opposite of double-mindedness and lukewarmness) is something which should be fully natural, and especially present and natural to the human heart in the midst of its fallen state.

In other words, just the fact that man (the very light of whose mind and consciousness is a created participation in the Life of Christ) lives in this fallen world should generate the cry which God requires for healing us. And if we look at all the various facets of human intelligence, we should be able to see this naturalness.For instance, we desire perfect happiness, and experience endless sorrows. We conceive of the Infinite, and are fettered in finitude. We conceive of Eternity, and are ravaged by time, which culminates in our subjection to death. We long for Peace, both interior and exterior, and are immersed in conflict and war both within and without. All of this, and much more, should naturally and fully generate that cry to God which purges all lukewarmness and hypocrisy. But we abort our thought, divide the heart, and make God an appendage of a lukewarm or dead faith which, because of self-deceit and the attempt to serve two masters, is not accompanied by the passion of an undivided heart.In other words, the human heart and mind are natural wellsprings of concepts, ideas, and passions which in any person who possesses a “heart of flesh ”should break forth in cries to God for knowledge and deliverance – “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7:24).As we have pointed out, There is nothing more clearly evidential of the “half-way”, duplicitous thinking of traditional and conservative Catholics than the apparent total absence of the question “Why is this happening to us?” – “Why is God chastising us like this?” This question should be the totally logical “end-thought” in all the discussions and analysis concerning the present crisis, and yet it is absent.

In other words, the traditional Catholic world, while possessing much knowledge of what is wrong “out there”, displays profound deficiency in that interior intelligence necessary for any solution to the present crisis: “For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” (Mt. 13:15)It has been said that, “The death of martyrs is the seed of Christians”. It can equally be said that “The duplicity of Christians is the seed of heresy, and ultimately of the coming of Antichrist.

It is theoretically possible that everyone in the world could possess the Faith, and yet be dead in charity. Similarly, it is equally possible that we could possess all understanding of the machinations of those both within and without the Church who are bent upon her destruction, and yet be dead in that understanding with the heart which fully acknowledges that these evils have grown and been nourished in our own friendship with this world. And, as insulting and horrific as this may sound to many, it is also theoretically possible that everyone in the whole world could possess and attend the Traditional Latin Mass, and yet be numbered among those whom Our Lord would “vomit out of His mouth” (Apoc. 3;16).  After all, Latin Rite Catholics universally possessed this Mass before Vatican II, and this did not prevent the vast majority of Catholics from passively surrendering to all the banalities and explicit or implicit heresies imposed upon them in the “New-Church”, and the eventual massive slide into Catholic apostasy which we now have with us.

We who are directly involved with the Rosary to the Interior: For the Purification of the Church do not consider ourselves as some sort of Remnant, secure in our faith and the promise of eternal salvation. We fear the depths of our own duplicity in trying to live the Catholic Faith in this world. And although we may indeed be free from the gross and mortal sins which now seem common fare, we cannot claim freedom from immersion in the same world that now spins its threefold web of concupiscence at an exponentially increasing rate around all of our hearts and minds.It is the lesson of original sin and its dire consequences that we are all in this together.

It is the lesson of Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice, and His founding of the Church to be the mediator of the graces won through the Cross, that the salvation of each one is intimately connected to all. This is why a united effort in penance and prayer is absolutely central for deliverance from the disaster that is now upon us. And first and foremost, it requires that we begin with “We have sinned”, rather than “They have sinned”.

As explained in our Original Proposal , we believe that it is the will of God that this collective purification can only be accomplished in the depths of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and through her Rosary. And we believe that the Feast of the Purification and Presentation on February 2, 2020 is singularly appropriate for this united Cry for Deliverance. It is necessary that in the depths of Our Lady’s merciful Heart each one of us seek our own personal light of purification in order that the Light of Christ might once again radiate forth from His Temple the Church for the conversion of the world.

This year the Feast of the Purification and Presentation providentially occurs on a Sunday. All Churches will be open. We ask everyone who sincerely seeks this purification both in their own lives and the life of the Church to approach other Catholics for a united effort in implementing what is in our Proposal. We then ask them to approach their pastors and bishops with the request to implement what is in this Proposal – after Mass, or whenever possible during the day. If this request is refused, and permission is refused to use the Church, we ask that it be done at the entrance to the Church.  If ordered to leave, then we ask that it be done in the public domain (a public sidewalk for instance) as near to the Church as possible. Wherever it can be done, we fully believe that the sincere and united cry of the faithful for deliverance will be blessed by God. No one has the right to suppress such a Cry from the depths of the human soul.

We also believe that in order to achieve that integrity of heart and mind necessary in order to passionately desire to participate in such a Nineve-like cry, each one of us must personally be plunged more deeply into the purifying grace and light of understanding which is to be found through an increasingly attentive and non-duplicitous praying of the Rosary, and especially the Hail Mary. This is why, in terms of our own personal purification, and for achieving that singleness of intention towards God which is the source of all true growth in both Catholic intelligence and holiness, we believe our article The Rosary: The Way of Perfection to be the most important of all the articles on this website. We ask that each reader give it very serious attention and consideration._____________________________________

*We fully realize that in asserting that what is now happening within the Church is a Divine chastisement, we are risking accusations of having committed multiple heresies – all the way from claiming that every Pope is directly chosen by God, to denying human freedom and responsibility, and to claiming that God positively wills evil. We flatly deny any such accusations, but do not intend to enter into polemics with anyone. We leave it to the readers to search into the depths of their own minds, hearts, and lives to determine if what has been written above is true.admin | December 10, 2019 at 10:14 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p9t9Xu-u6

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

LET YOUR "YES" BE YES AND YOUR "NO" BE NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

¡Viva Guadalajara!

Dec11by The Editor

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/12/11/viva-guadalajara/

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In the conclave of 2243, the Cardinals of the Roman Church, in their final votation, elected a Spaniard.

So, according to the rules established by Pope John Paul II, on February 22, 1996, in the document Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 87, the Cardinal Deacon, the Secretary of the College of Cardinals and the Master of Cerimonies for Pontifical Liturgies approach the Spanish Cardinal and ask him in these solemn words if he will accept his election:  Do you accept your canonical election as the Supreme Pontiff?

Silence.

Then the Cardinal Deacon signals with his eyes to the Elected Cardinal, asking for an answer.

The Cardinal Elect, smiles, then extends both hands to each side and forms the V sign. With that he says in a clear voice: ¡Viva Guadalajara!

The Spanish Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel, familiar with the jocularity of the Elected Cardinal, giggle. The Cardinal from Barcelona says to himself, “What a joker! But this is not a time for laughs!”

The Secretary of the College gives a stern look at the Cardinal Elect. He is not amused at this kind of levity. So he turns to the Cardinal Deacon, who is perplexed, and whispers: “Let’s ask him again”.

So the aged Cardinal Deacon, turns to the Cardinal Elect, and asks again, this time in Spanish: ¿Acepta su elección canónica como Sumo Pontífice?

Silence.

Then, the Cardinal Elect, answers: raising both his right and left hand as before, and making the V sign with each, he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara! — This time with an even bigger smile on his face.

At this point, the Cardinals break their silence, and mixed mutterings of insouciance and consternation.

The Cardinal Deacon, now impatient, says to the Cardinal Elect: “This is no time to make jokes. Please answer the question with a Yes or a No”. Then recomposing himself, he repeats the canonical question, this time in Italian: Accetti la tua elezione canonica a Sommo Pontefice? 

And again, the Cardinal Elect responds in the same manner.

At this point, the Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel break out in small groups of conversation. Everyone is trying to figure out what the Cardinal Elect means to say. The Spanish Cardinals approach the Elect and attempt to reason with him. But he says nothing futher. All he does is keep smiling and raising his right and left hand now and then with the V sign, for victory.

So in accord with the Papal Law on Conclaves, UDG, n. 5, the Cardinal from Paris asks that the College discuss and decide what is to be done, since the Papal Law says nothing about the manner in which the Cardinal Elect is to accept the office, whether it be by a Yes or No or by some other sign.

Two factions arise among the Cardinals. On the one side, a minority hold that the Cardinal Elect, by the words used has not accepted his election and must be considered either in error or mad. On the other side, the position taken is that of the Cardinal of Mexico City, who reasons this way: There is no more certain a manner of indicating that one has accepted the dignity of a prince than to respond in a manner which requires his listeners to acquiesce to his authority. Now by responding in this manner, does not the Cardinal Elect clearly show his intent to act like a prince? And therefore, his intention to accept the election? Is he not just putting our loyalty to the test? I for one will not fail in my loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff in this his first act of office!

This line of reasoning wins over the majority and they vote to regard the manner of speech chosen by the Cardinal Elect as meaning, “Yes, I accept”.

The Cardinal Deacon, then approaches the Cardinal Elect and asks him by which name he wants to be known. He replies, “Ignazio I”.

And years pass. And there is nothing controversial in the pontificate of Ignatius the First. Not in the least.

Except for this one thing.

Every time journalists manage to get an interview with him, and they ask him about the moment of his election as Pope, they ask him what he said, and he says: ¡Viva Guadalajara!

About 6 years into his reign as pope, one journalist, by the name of Marco Tosatti III, wanting to understand this better, asks a very specific question of Pope Ignatius I, during a plan trip.

Tosatti III: I know, your Holiness, has been asked this same question many times. And we are all impressed by your talent for humor and your jocundity, which is so unique among the Popes. But the day of your election, if I may ask again, can you tell just what you said, when the Cardinal Deacon asked you if you would accept your canonical election?

Ignatius I: I said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!

Tosatti III: Is that all you said?

Ignatius I: Yes.

Tosatti III: Did you not say, Yes?

Ignatius I: No, I never said Yes or No. I simply said, ¡Viva Guadalajara!

Marco Tosatti III publishes his interview and it goes round the world. The Pope never said yes.

A few days later, another Italian Vaticanista, by the name of Sandro Magister V, obtains an interview with the aged Cardinal Deacon, who confirms the story: Yes, he never said, yes. In fact there was a controversy in the Conclave, and now that Pope Ignatius I has abolished the pontifical secret on his election, I can reveal that we held a vote in accord with Universi Dominici Gregis, n. 5, and we determined that canonically speaking, this phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! would be taken to mean, “yes, I accept”.

Magister V also publishes his interview, which causes even more of an uproar and travels round the world.

About two weeks later, an old lady from the suburb of Madrid, Spain, where Pope Ignatius I grew up, flys to Rome and enters the Piazza of St Peter with a sign, saying, “He is not the Pope!” The Gendarmerie, the Vatican Police, attempt to take the sign from her, there is a scuffle and they end up punching her and she punching them back. Eventually they take both her and the sign away.

But the pilgrims in the piazza photograph and video record the entire travesty and these images go world wide on all social media platforms.

The next day in all the majors newspapers and MSM sites the one topic is why they beat up this poor old women. And the journalists who are allowed to interview her in the Vatican jail all receive the same statement, prepared by her attorney: In my suburb of Madrid, where I grew up with Pope Ignatius I, the phrase, ¡Viva Guadalajara! has always meant, “You got to be kidding. I would no more agree to that than support the team from Guadalajara, by shouting ¡Viva Guadalajara! at a soccer match with our own team!”

At this news, journalists flock to Madrid, Spain and interview all those they can find who knew the Pope as a child or youngster. And they all agree that what this old lady said is the absolute truth.

And these journalists report what they find. And, the next day, Ignatius I gives an interview and says: You see, there is nothing I hate more that arrogance and sycophantry. So when I saw that there were no worthy candidates for the Papacy, I determined to do what I could to delay as much as possible the Conclave, so the most unworthy ones would be taken by the Lord or not be able to vote, having reached the age of 80. So I contrived the deception I used to fool everyone. And it worked. But now that my purpose has achieved its goal, I willing admit that I was never pope, because I never accepted my election as the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, I will now stop pretending to be pope and go back to Madrid and enjoy my final years of life by drinking cerveza and watching the Madrid Soccer team. Good-bye and Adios!

_____________

The Limits of Discretion

So ends the fictional canonical case I have created. As you can see, strange things can happen if the discretion which we Catholics traditionally accord to the Cardinals goes beyond all limits. There are just some things they cannot do even if they want to.

One thing they cannot do, even if they want to, regards the interpretation of verbal texts. As a translator of medieval texts, I understand well that there are 3 ways of determining the meaning of any obscure phrase. The first is intrinsic, the second extrinsic and the third is referential.

Intrinsic methods look to the meaning of the words used and their grammatical structure. Extrinsic methods look to the context in which the phrase is used and impose a theory about what the intent was in the author’s mind in using the obscure phrase. Referential methods look for other occurrences of the same obscure phrase in the writings of the same author, his contemporaries or those authors he read or cited.

And as a translator, I have learned the hard way, that the worse method of interpretation is the extrinsic method. The intrinsic method can be used but it requires great discretion and a good knowledge of the author one is reading. The referential method is the most certain but one has to take into account that every author might use standard phrases slightly differently.

¡Viva Guadalajara!

As can be seen from the fictional case I have constructed, grave error can arise when the ones who should be interpreting the meaning of things said by the Pope use the extrinsic method, by adopting the context of the phrase and some theory of what the intention was of the one saying it, and from these two data points extrapolate the meaning of the phrase.

This has been no idle study. And though you may find this story humorous, that is not my intention. Because though it regards what could happen regarding the very first moment an man becomes the Pope, the same interpretational problem can arise in the very last moment a man is the Pope, that is in an Act of Renunciation.

Because, when a man renounces the papacy, Canon 332 §2 requires that he say something that signifies, In my capacity as Roman Pontiff, I renounce the munus which I received in the Apostolic Succession from Saint Peter, the day I accepted my election as Supreme Pontiff by the College of Cardinals.

The words do not have to be the ones I just wrote, but they have to signify essentially the same thing.

If you say, however, I declare that I renounce the ministry which was entrusted to me through the hands of the Cardinals, the day I was elected, then you have a problem. Because no where in the Code of Canon Law, nor in Canonical Tradition, nor in the mind of Pope John Paul II do we find any clear equation or predication of munus by ministerium. To hold that Pope Benedict’s renunciation of ministry means a renunciation of munus is an interpretation, unfounded in the law. Moreover, the Cardinals and Bishops and Clergy who hold this interpretation have no authority in the law to interpret the Papal Act in this manner.

We need to be adults and admit this problem of interpretation.

And the ones who committed this error have to grow up and stop insisting that we follow them in it. After all, religious extremism does not consist in refusing an error of interpretation. Religious extremism consists in insisting, like ISIS, that we accept their errors of interpretation or else.

CREDITS: the image of the Cathedral of Madrid is taken from the Wikipedia article on the Facade of the Cathedral of Madrid and is used under the wiki commons license described there.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

BE YE HOT OR COLD BUT NOT LUKEWARM OTHERWISE I WILL SPIT YOU OUT OF MY MOUTH, LET YOUR SPEECH BE EITHER YES OR NO

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, December 08, 2019

Why is LifeSiteNews Afraid to “Investigate or Report” that apparently Canon 17 “Requires that Ministerium and Munus [must] be Understood as Referring to Two Different Things”?

On December 6, LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac in the comment section claimed that the news site had “indeed reported” on “a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on… [in which] faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41”:

Islam_Is_Islam Patty • a day ago
@Patty: Your testimony is witness to the facts of the matter. Thank you for your faithfulness! There is a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on. These faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41. Did you know that in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium? The Cdl electors did not proceed with due diligence and maybe don’t want to ‘fess up to their mistake.
Steve Jalsevac Mod Islam_Is_Islam • a day ago
Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-amoris-opening-communion-to-adulterers-is-magisterium-of-the-church]

Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. The news site has never reported on why “in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium,” but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the “Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)” and not in referring to the all important canon 17.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains canon 17’s importance:

“Canon 17… states ‘if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places.”
(Catholic World Report, “Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded,” September 28, 2017)

On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the “abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: ‘I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.’”

But, the “theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity” never mentioned canon 17:

“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” 

The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”

“He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.” 

“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”

The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is ‘not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.” 

He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.

The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”

But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid.”

“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”

“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17’s criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:

“Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”
(From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to “investigate or report on” that “Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”?

LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?

If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo’s scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.

LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you’re not afraid:

Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to. 

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized. 

For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.

First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.

Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.

This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….
The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.

For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.

This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law

This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.Let us take a look at each, briefly.Ministeria
The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..Ministerii:
The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:

Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.

Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:

756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.

Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.

Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.

In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:

Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.

Which in English is:

Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.

Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.Ministeriis
The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:

Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.

The English  is:Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:

  1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
  2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
  3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.

Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.Ministerio
The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.Ministeriorum
The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.And finally the Nominative Singular form.MINISTERIUM
Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.
First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.The Latin reads:

Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.

The English reads:

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.

Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.

Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.

Which in English is:

Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.

The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law

Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.This occurs only once in canon 145, §1

Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.

Which in English is:

Canon 145 § 1. An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.

Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

In English:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:

Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.

Which in English is:

Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.

Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:

4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia

Which in English reads:

  1. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.

If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.——(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PREVIEW OF YOUNG CONGRESSMAN Jim Jordan'S STYLE OF CROSS EXAMINATION

You can git outta ma way, or we kin keep talkin’… yer call!


​I HOPE THAT THIS IS A PHOTOSHOPPED PHOTO;IT CAPTURES PERFECTLY THE INTERROGATION STYLE OF CONGRESSMAN Jim Jordan​

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CORUPTIO OPTIMI PESSIMI. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ANGEL AND A DEVIL

Crisis MagazineA Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity

DECEMBER 10, 2019

Why Is the SPLC Persecuting Traditional Catholics?

JESSE B. RUSSELL

Few activist groups have been more powerful or influential than the Southern Poverty Law Center. Established in 1971, the SPLC was founded with the noble desire—at least on the surface—to combat the violence being perpetrated by groups that were resisting the federally mandated forced integration of blacks and whites in the American South.

As many if not most of these groups expounded ideology that generally was repugnant to most Christians, such as neo-Nazism or the Klu Klux Klan’s white Protestant nationalism, the SPLC was generally given accolades for its good work—even if they employed methods that were unethical or, as some have claimed, illegal.

However, the SPLC then began to attack Christian pro-life and pro-family groups that did not adhere to the establishment narrative regarding the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism. At the same time, it became increasingly clear—even to many on the left—that the SPLC was accumulating a lavish financial war chest that was being used more to enrich the SPLC administration and board members than it was to combat illegal activity among alleged hate groups.

Moreover, with a lull in interest in groups like the Klan, many of the SPLC’s sympathizers began wondering what the Center was doing with all that money.

In recent years, the SPLC was (ironically) beset with allegations of racism and mistreatment of its black American members who were largely kept on as props while the administration of the SPLC was dominated by individuals who were white. Finally, as the #metoo scandal gained traction, many in the SPLC’s leadership were accused of sexual abuse and harassment of female employees. Moreover, the SPLC’s founder, Morris Dees, was revealed to be a sexual predator who had preyed on his own stepdaughter.

Finally, the SPLC has been accused of influencing terrorist attacks on Christian organizations—most notably left-wing terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins’s attempted mass shooting at the Family Research Council’s offices. In the official court documents of Corkins’s trial, he explicitly confessed to the FBI that he received his impression that the Family Research Council was an “anti-gay hate group” from the Southern Poverty Center’s “Hate Watch” database.

With all of this financial malfeasance, racism, sexual abuse, and terrorism linked to the SPLC, one would think that the organization would be completely discredited and abandoned by the establishment media.

***

Yet the SPLC not only refuses to cease its operations, it continues to seek out new enemies—most recently, traditional Catholics.

In their recently updated entry on “Radical Traditional Catholicism,” the SPLC refers to Catholics who adhere to the Church’s traditional magisterium as possibly the “largest single group of serious antisemites in America.”

Bundling together as a group traditional Catholic newspapers and organizations, many of which are strongly critical of one another, and which differ from one another very strongly on a host of theological and political issues, the SPLC claims these groups

routinely pillory Jews as “the perpetual enemy of Christ” and worse, reject the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican, and sometimes even assert that recent popes have all been illegitimate. These groups are incensed by the liberalizing reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, which condemned hatred for the Jews and rejected the accusation that Jews are collectively responsible for deicide in the form of the crucifixion of Christ.

In one sense, Catholics who strive to remain faithful to the Church’s traditional teaching should not even dignify this malicious slander with a response. Moreover, one might ask why a non-Catholic and non-Christian organization has any right regulating what Catholics and other Christians believe.

As Michael Matt of The Remnant argued in a 2013 lecture for The Fatima Center, the SPLC’s accusations of Catholics as anti-Semites belie an “ignorance of history, scripture, and theology.” Mr. Matt’s Remnant is among the oldest and most widely-read traditional Catholic publications in the United States. It is also one of the organizations the SPLC identifies as adhering to “Radical Traditionalist Catholicism.” Thus, the SPLC’s attack strikes at the very heart of traditional Catholic life in America.

After interviewing Mr. Matt and consulting with other left-wing journalists, Cory Zurowski of City Pages was forced to admit—albeit somewhat subtly and with a few jabs at the size of Michael Matt’s family as well as his love for down-home Midwestern cooking—that Michael Matt had very little in common with the swastika-tattooed motor cycle and prison gangs with whom he was lumped in the SPLC’s “hate” list.

While even left-wing journalists will admit that the personal character as well the legal records of traditional Catholics like Michael Matt are both pristine, organizations such as the SPLC cannot let go of their unjust and cartoonish depictions of homeschooling Minnesotans and kind-hearted Latin Mass priests as being akin to SS officers and Gestapo prison guards.

As Crisis’s own Michael Warren Davis noted in a November 2018 Catholic Herald piece, the primary reason for this slander is the fact that traditional Catholics, although flawed and sinful people like everyone else, have a sincere charity for the members of the human race—whether these people are fellow Catholics, Jews, or anyone else. With this sincere charity, we desire the greatest good for others: salvation through Jesus Christ.

As St. Thomas Aquinas notes in Question 27 of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae, true charity includes goodwill or benevolence, and the highest good that we can will our neighbor is his salvation and union with God Himself.

A progressive or neoconservative Catholic who does not will the salvation of others—whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or neo-pagan—is not exercising tolerance, but rather a lack of charity and, in a certain sense, a lack of faith.

Despite its arguably strong language, the traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews is not a curse, but rather a prayer motivated by love that the Jews might acknowledge “the light of …Truth, which is Christ…”

Ultimately, as conservative and traditional Catholics we should make a few key points clear regarding our inclusion on a “hate watch” list.

First of all, Catholics must respond to the SPLC that Catholics, in toto, condemn any form of hatred, including racial hatred.

Secondly, we as Catholics condemn any sort of unscientific, unreasonable, and simply untrue approach to studying and documenting human formation and human behavior—whether that approach is called “racist” or even “anti-racist.”

Finally, as Catholics we should consider it a badge of honor that an organization that is decadent, corrupt, and replete with sexism and racism and which thinks it has the right and moral duty to regulate what white, black, Muslim, and Christian Americans think and do should consider our Church its enemy.

Tagged as Southern Poverty Law CenterTraditionalists37

Jesse B. Russell

By Jesse B. Russell

Jesse B. Russell writes for a variety of Catholic publications.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ONE MAN'S MUNUS IS ANOTHER MAN'S MINISTERIUM, EXCEPT THAT IT ISN'T TRUE

Catholic Monitor

Sunday, December 08, 2019

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-is-lifesitenews-afraid-to.html

Why is LifeSiteNews Afraid to “Investigate or Report” that apparently Canon 17 “Requires that Ministerium and Munus [must] be Understood as Referring to Two Different Things”?

On December 6, LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac in the comment section claimed that the news site had “indeed reported” on “a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on… [in which] faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41”:

Islam_Is_Islam Patty • a day ago
@Patty: Your testimony is witness to the facts of the matter. Thank you for your faithfulness! There is a growing movement that LifeSiteNews will not investigate or report on. These faithful request an examination of the words of Pope Benedict’s declaration of renunciation in light of Canon Law, esp 332.2, 17, 131.1, 40, and 41. Did you know that in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium? The Cdl electors did not proceed with due diligence and maybe don’t want to ‘fess up to their mistake.
Steve Jalsevac Mod Islam_Is_Islam • a day ago
Lifesite has indeed reported on that. Perhaps you are disappointed that we have not taken a firm position on the controversy. As a news agency that is not our role.
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-amoris-opening-communion-to-adulterers-is-magisterium-of-the-church]

Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. The news site has never reported on why “in canon law munus is never interchanged with ministerium,” but instead spoke about the two words only referring to the “Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short)” and not in referring to the all important canon 17.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters explains canon 17’s importance:

“Canon 17… states ‘if the meaning [of the law, and UDG is a law] remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places.”
(Catholic World Report, “Francis was never pope? Call me unpersuaded,” September 28, 2017)

On February 14, 2019, LifeSiteNews admitted that it is possible according to their quoted theologian that Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation could have been invalid. The LifeSiteNews theologian said the “abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: ‘I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.’”

But, the “theologian who spoke to LifeSiteNews on condition of anonymity” never mentioned canon 17:

“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’” 

The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”

“He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.” 

“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”

The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is ‘not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.” 

He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.

The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”

But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid.”

“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”

“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”
[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/did-benedict-really-resign-gaenswein-burke-and-brandmueller-weigh-in]

Canon law and Latin language expert Br. Alexis Bugnolo says this is not a correct way to canonically and legally approach the resignation because canon law requires an objective reading of what the two words mean using canon 17’s criteria as canon lawyer Peters explained and not a subjective reading of what the two words may possibly have meant in the mind of Benedict or in a Latin dictionary:

“Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”
(From Rome, “Ganswein, Brandmuller & Burke: Please read Canon 17, February 14, 2019)

Why does it appear that LifeSiteNews refuses or is afraid to “investigate or report on” that “Canon 17 requires that Canon 332 S2 be read in accord with the meaning of canon 145 S1  and canon 41… [which] requires that ministerium and munus be understood as referring to two different things.”?

LifeSiteNews are you seeking the truth?

If you disagree with Br. Bugnolo’s scholarly thesis then counter it with reasonable counter arguments otherwise you have revealed that you are not seeking the truth.

LifeSiteNews, please, refute the following if you’re not afraid:

Br. Bugnolo has explained in overwhelming detail in the following treatise using canon law why canonists are wrong in saying ministerium and munus are synonyms that mean the exact same thing or nearly the exact same thing:

https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/munus-and-ministerium-a-canonical-study/

Munus and Ministerium: A Textual Study of their Usage
in the Code of Canon Law of 1983 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

The study of Canon Law is a recondite field for nearly everyone in the Church except Canon Lawyers. And even for Canon Lawyers, most of whom are prepared to work in the Marriage Tribunals of the Church, most of the Code of Canon Law is not frequently referred to. 

However, when it comes to the problems of determining the validity of a canonical act, the expertise among Canon Lawyers becomes even more difficult to find, since the circumstances and problems in a single canonical act touch upon a great number of Canons of the Code of Canon Law, and thus require the profound knowledge and experience of years of problem solving to be readily recognized. 

For this reason, though popularly many Catholics are amazed that after 6 years there can still be questions and doubts about the validity of the Act of Renunciation declared by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, it actually is not so surprising when one knows just a little about the complexity of the problems presented by the document which contains that Act.

First of all, the Latin of the Act, which is the only official and canonical text, is rife with errors of Latin Grammar. All the translations of the Act which have ever been done, save for a few, cover those errors with a good deal of indulgence, because it is clear that whoever wrote the Latin was not so fluent in writing Latin as they thought, a thing only the experts at such an art can detect.

Even myself, who have translated thousands of pages of Latin into English, and whose expertise is more in making Latin intelligible as read, than in writing intelligible Latin according to the rules of Latin grammar can see this. However, we are not talking about literary indulgences when we speak of the canonical value or signification of a text.

For centuries it was a constant principle of interpretation, that if a canonical act in Latin contained errors it was not to be construed as valid, but had to be redone. Unfortunately for the Church, Cardinal Sodano and whatever Cardinals or Canonists examined the text of the Act prior to the public announcement of its signification utterly failed on this point, as will be seen during this conference.

This is because if there are multiple errors or any error, the Cardinal was allowed and even obliged under canons 40 and 41 to ask that the text be corrected.

This evening, however, we are not going to talk about the lack of good Latinity in the text of the Act nor of the other errors which make the text unintelligible to fluent Latinists who think like the Romans of Cicero’s day when they see Latin written, but rather, of the signification of Canon 332 §2, in its fundamental clause of condition, where it says in the Latin, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, which in good English is, If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus….
The entire condition for a Papal Renunciation of Office in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II is founded on this first clause of Canon 332 §2.  It behooves us, therefore, when any say that the Renunciation was valid or invalid, to first read this Canon and understand when a renunciation takes place and when it does not take place.

For this purpose, in this first intervention at this Conference, I will speak about the meaning of the two words, Munus and Ministerium, in the Code of Canon Law.  I will speak of both, because, in Canon 332 §2 Pope John Paul II wrote munus and in the Act of Renunciation, Pope Benedict XVI renounced ministerium.

This study is not an idle one, or even only of academic interest. It is required by Canon Law, because in Canon 17, it says, that when there arises a doubt about the signification of a canon, one is to have recourse to the Code of Canon Law, the sources of canonical tradition and the Mind of the Legislator (Pope John Paul II) in determining the authentic meaning.

According to Canon 17 the words of Canoon 332 §2, therefore, are to be understood properly. Therefore, let us examine the Code to see what is the proper meaning of the words munus and ministerium.

Ministerium in the Code of Canon Law

This study is something everyone with the Internet can do. Because there exists an indexed copy of the Latin text of the Code on line at Intratext.com.  In the Alphabetic index of which one can find hyperlinked, all the words found in the Code, in their different Latin forms.For the word Ministerium, there are 6 forms found:  Ministeria, Ministerii, Ministeriis, Ministerio, Ministeriorum, Ministerium.  Respectively they occur 7, 13, 3, 17, 3, 25 times each in the Code.Let us take a look at each, briefly.Ministeria
The Nominative and Accusative Plural:  Occurs 7 times. In canons 230, 232, 233,  237, 385, 611 and 1035.  Each of these refer to one or more of the sacred ministries or services exercised during the Divine Liturgy, whether by priests, lectors, acolytes etc..Ministerii:
The Genitive. Occurs 13 times.  In canons 233 twice, 276, 278, 519, 551, 756, 759, 1370, 1373, 1375 1389, 1548.  These refer to the sacred service (canons 233, in canon 271 §2, 1, to the duties of the pastoral ministry (ministerii pastoralis  officia as in canon 276, 278 or 551) which sanctify the priest, and specifically in relation to munus in several canons:In Canon 519, where it says of the duties of the Pastor of a Parish:

Can. 519 – Parochus est pastor proprius paroeciae sibi commissae, cura pastorali communitatis sibi concreditae fungens sub auctoritate Episcopi dioecesani, cuius in partem ministerii Christi vocatus est, ut pro eadem communitate munera exsequatur docendi, sanctificandi et regendi, cooperantibus etiam aliis presbyteris vel diaconis atque operam conferentibus christifidelibus laicis, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

Canon 519:  The parish priest is the pastor of the parish assigned to him, exercising (fungens) the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the Diocesan Bishop, in a portion of whose ministry in Christ (in partem ministerii Chirsti) he has been called, so that he might execute (exsequatur) the munera of teaching, sanctifying and ruling for the same community, with the cooperation also of the other priests and/or deacons and faithful laity assisting in the work, according to the norm of law.

Let us note, first of all, that here the Code distinguishes between the munera of teaching, santifying and ruling from the entire ministry of Christ a part of which is shared by the Bishop.And again in Canon 756, when it speaks of the munus of  announcing the Gospel, it says, after speaking of the duty of the Roman Pontiff in this regard in conjunction with the College of Bishops:

756 § 2.  Quoad Ecclesiam particularem sibi concreditam illud munus exercent singuli Episcopi, qui quidem totius ministerii verbi in eadem sunt moderatores; quandoque vero aliqui Episcopi coniunctim illud explent quoad diversas simul Ecclesias, ad normam iuris.

Which in English is:

756 §2  In regard to the particular Church entrusted to him, every Bishop, who is indeed the moderater of the whole ministry of the word to it, exercises (exercent) this munus; but also when any Bishop fulfills that conjointly in regard to the diverse Churches, according to the norm of law.

Let us note here simply that the Code distinguishes between the exercise of a munus and the ministerium of preaching the word.

Again in canon 759, ministerii is used regarding the preaching of the word. In Canon 1370 it is used in reference to the contempt of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1373, it is spoken of in regard the an act of ecclesiastical power or ministry. In canon 1548 in regard to the exercise of the sacred ministry of the clergy.

In canon 1389, it is spoken of in the context of power, munus and ministry. Let us take a closer look:

Can. 1389 – § 1.  Ecclesiastica potestate vel munere abutens pro actus vel omissionis gravitate puniatur, non exclusa officii privatione, nisi in eum abusum iam poena sit lege vel praecepto constituta.
2. Qui vero, ex culpabili neglegentia, ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii vel muneris actum illegitime cum damno alieno ponit vel omittit, iusta poena puniatur.

Which in English is:

Canon 1389 §1  Let the one abusing Ecclesiastical power and/or munus be punished in proportion to the gravity of the act and/or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless for that abuse there has already been established a punishment by law and/or precept.
2. However, Let him who, out of culpable negligence, illegitimately posits and/or omits an act of ecclesiastical power and/or ministry and/or of munus, with damage to another, be punished with a just punishment.

Let us note here that the Code in a penal precept distinguishes between: potestas, ministerium and munus. This implies that in at least one proper sense of each of these terms, they can be understood to signify something different or distinct from the other.This finishes the study of the occurences of ministerii.Ministeriis
The ablative and dative plural form. Occurs 3 times.   In canons 274 and 674, where it refers to the sacred ministry of the priesthood and to the ministries exercised in parish life, respectively.And in Canon 1331 §1, 3, where the one excommunicated is forbidden to exercise all ecclesiastical duties (officiis) and/or ministries and/or munera (muneribus) The Latin is:

Can. 1331 – § 1.  Excommunicatus vetatur:
1 ullam habere participationem ministerialem in celebrandis Eucharistiae Sacrificio vel  quibuslibet aliis cultus caerimoniis;
2 sacramenta vel sacramentalia celebrare et sacramenta recipere;
3 ecclesiasticis officiis vel ministeriis vel muneribus quibuslibet fungi vel actus regiminis ponere.

The English  is:Canon 1331 §1.  An excommunicate is forbidden:

  1. from having any ministerial participation in the celebrating of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and/or in any other ceremonies of worship
  2. from celebrating the Sacraments and/or sacramentals and from receiving the Sacraments;
  3. from exercising (fungi) ecclesiastical officia and/or ministeria and/or munera and/or from positing acts of governance.

Let us note again, that the Code distinguishes in this negative precept the terms Officia, Ministeria and Munera. This means, very significantly, that in the Mind of the Legislator, there is a proper sense in which these terms can each be understood as excluding the other. All three are named to make the signification of the negative precept comprehensive of all possible significations.Ministerio
The Ablative and Dative singular form. Occurs 17 times. Canons 252, 271, 281, 386 refer to the ministries exercised in the liturgy or apostolate. Canon 545 uses ministerio in reference to the pastoral ministry being proffered, 548 likewise in reference to the pastor of a parish, 559 likewise. Canon 713 refers to the priestly ministry, canons 757, 760 and 836 to the ministry of the word. Canon 899 to the priestly ministry of Christ. Canon 1036 speaks of the need a Bishop has to have knowledge that a candidate for ordination has a willingness to dedicate himself to the life long service which is the duty of orders.Canon 1722, which has to deal with canonical trials, speaks again of the sacred ministerium, officium and munus exercised (arcere) of the one accused. Distinguishing all three terms to make a comprehensive statement of what can be interdicted by a penalty.This far for the 17 instances of ministerio.Ministeriorum
The genitive plural form. Occurs 3 times. In canon 230 in regard to the conferral of ministries of acolyte and lector upon laymen. In canon 499 in regard to having members of the Presbyteral Council of the Diocese include priests with a variety of ministries exercised all over the diocese. And in canon 1050, in regard to those to be ordained, that they have a document showing they have willingly accepted a live long ministry in sacred service.And finally the Nominative Singular form.MINISTERIUM
Of which there are 25 occurrences in the Code.
First and most significantly in Canon 41, the very canon that Cardinal Sodano had to act upon when examining the Act of Renunciation by Pope Benedict.The Latin reads:

Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.

The English reads:

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.

Then, ministerium occurs again in canon 230, in reference to the ministry of the word, where officia is used in the sense of duties. In canon 245, in regard to the pastoral ministry and teaching missionaries the ministry. In Canon 249 again in regard to the pastoral ministry, in 255 in regard to the ministry of teaching, sanctifying etc.., in 256, 257, 271, 324 in regard to the sacred ministry of priests, in Canon 392 in regard to the ministries of the word. In Canon 509 in regard to the ministry exercised by the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter. In Canon 545 in regard to the parish ministry, in canon 533 in regard to the ministry exercised by a Vicar. In canons 618 and 654 in regard to the power received by religious superiors through the ministry of the Church. In Canon 1025, 1041, and 1051 to the usefulness of a candidate for orders for service (ministerium) to the Church. In Canon 1375 to those who exercise power and/or ecclesiastical ministry.Ministerium occurs significantly in canon 1384, regard to the penalites a priest can incurr.

Can. 1384 – Qui, praeter casus, de quibus in cann. 1378-1383, sacerdotale munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium illegitime exsequitur, iusta poena puniri potest.

Which in English is:

Canon 1384  Who, besides the cases, concerning which in canons 1378 to 1383 the priestly munus and/or any other sacred ministerium is illegitimately executed, can be punished with a just punishment.

The Code explicitly distinguishes between munus and ministerium as entirely different and or distinct aspects of priestly being and action.To finish off, the Code mentions Ministerium, again in Canon 1481 in regard to the ministry of lawyers, 1502 and 1634 to the ministry of judges, and in 1740 to ministry of the pastor of a parish.This completes the entire citation of the Code on the word Ministry in all its Latin Forms, singular and plural.In summation, we can see already that the Code distinguishes between proper senses of ministerium and munus, habitually throughout its canons and uses ministerium always for a service to be rendered by a layman, priest, Bishop, lawyer, judge or to or by the Church Herself. It never uses ministerium as an office or title or dignity or charge.

Munus in the Code of Canon Law

Munus is a very common term in the Code of Canon Law, occurring a total of 188 times.The Latin forms which appear in the Code are Munus (77 times), Muneris (26 times), Muneri (2 times), Munere (48 times), Munera (20 times) Munerum (6 times) and Muneribus (9 times).While the length of this conference does not me to cite them all, I will refer to the most important occurrences.I will omit citing Canon 331, 333, 334 and 749, where speaking of the Papal Office, the code uses the words Munus. In no other canons does it speak of the Papal office per se, except in Canon 332 §2, which governs Papal renunciations, where it also uses munus.But as to the proper sense of munus in the Code, let us look at the most significant usages:First as regards predication, where the Mind of the Legislator indicates when any given proper sense of this term can be said to be a another term.This occurs only once in canon 145, §1

Can. 145 – § 1. Officium ecclesiasticum est quodlibet munus ordinatione sive divina sive ecclesiastica stabiliter constitutum in finem spiritualem exercendum.

Which in English is:

Canon 145 § 1. An ecclesiastical office (officium) is any munus constituted by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance as to be exercised for a spiritual end.

Second, as regards the canons governing the events of Feb. 11, 2013, there is  Canon 40, which Cardinal Sodano and his assistants had to refer to in the moments following the Consistory of Feb 11, 2013:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munerefungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

In English:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his munus (suo munero), before he receives the document (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) its integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of it has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Third, as regards to the distinction of munus and the fulfillment of a duty of office, there is Canon 1484, §1 in regard to the offices of Procurator and Advocate in a Tribunal of Eccleisastical Jurisdiction:

Can. 1484 – § 1.  Procurator et advocatus antequam munus suscipiant, mandatum authenticum apud tribunal deponere debent.

Which in English is:

Canon 1484 §1.  The procurator and advocate ought to deposit a copy of their authentic mandate with the Tribunal, before they undertake their munus.

Note here, significantly, that the Code associates the mandate to exercise an office with the undertaking of the munus (munus). Negatively, therefore, what is implied by this canon is that when one lays down his mandate, there is a renunciation of the munus.Finally, in regard to possibile synonyms for munus, in the Code we have Canon 1331, §2, n. 4, which is one of the most significant in the entire code, as we shall see: There is forbidden the promotion of those who are excommunicated:

4 nequit valide consequi dignitatem, officium aliudve munus in Ecclesia

Which in English reads:

  1. He cannot validly obtain a dignity, office and/or any munus in the Church.

If there was every any doubt about the Mind of the Legislator of the proper sense of terms in the Code of Canon law regarding what Munus means, this canon answers it by equating dignity, office and munus as things to which one cannot be promoted!Note well, ministerium is not included in that list!  thus Ministerium does not signify a dignity, office or munus!This study of Munis and Ministerium in the Code thus concludes, for the lack of time. We have seen that the Code distinguishes clearly between the terms of officium, munus, ministerium, potestas and dignitas. It predicates officium of munus alone, It equates dignitas and munus and officium. It distinguishes between potestas and ministerium.The only sane conclusion is, therefore, that munus and ministerium are distinct terms with different meanings. They cannot substitute for one another in any sentence in which their proper senses are employed. Munus can substitute for officium, when officium means that which regards a title or dignity or ecclesiastical office.Thus in Canon 332 §2, where the Canon reads, Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet. The Code is not speaking of ministerium, and if it is speaking of any other terms, it is speaking of a dignitas or officium. But the papal office is a dignitas, officium and a munus.  thus Canon 332 §2 is using munus in its proper sense and referring to the papal office.——(This is a transcript of my first talk at the Conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI, which took place at Rome on Oct 21, 2019, the full transcript of which is found here)

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ANIMAL PLANET SHOULD RUN A SERIES OF PROGRAMS ON THE CREATURES THAT INHABIT THE SWAMP IN WASHINGTON AND UKRAINE

The Last RefugeRag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits – Contact Info: TheLastRefuge@reagan.com

Rudy Has the Democrats Going Bananas Again – A Trip to Ukraine Triggers DNC Media Reaction….

Posted on December 8, 2019 by sundance

Rudy Giuliani went to the Ukraine with an investigative journalist team from One America News Network and boy howdy are the democrats going bananas all over again.

In this interview Margaret Brennan sits with jaw agape as she questions Mark Meadows about the latest information that Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine. WATCH:

.

The DNC media is really worried about anyone going to Ukraine.  The over-reactions indicate something very politically damaging to them must emanate from Ukraine.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE WAGES OF SIN

From Your Digest

What was the happiest moment in your life?

Geordan Christian, Software EngineerAnswered Dec 18 2018

https://www.quora.com

Originally Answered: What is the happiest memory of your entire life so far?

My happiest memory unfortunately is also my most painful.

The girl I had been dating for many years got pregnant, she confessed to me she had sex with two other guys without protection. She had always been on the pill but ran out and was irresponsible about getting it refilled. She did not tell any of us three, and so all of a sudden there were three contenders for the kid’s father.

Based on the timing one of the guys was very unlikely to be the father. And my girl told me that the other guy’s doctor told him he was not capable of having kids due to some issue.

I stepped up and supported her through the pregnancy, I was the one who picked out his name even. When he was born all my paternal instincts just turned on like a faucet. He looked EXACTLY like my baby pictures. I just knew in my heart he had to be mine. It was the happiest I had ever felt.

I held him and he reached up and grabbed my pinky finger with his little hand. His first action in this world was reaching for me and I just lost it. I was bawling and I knew without a doubt he was mine and I would die for him without a second thought.

9 months later I decided to put my mind at ease and do a DNA test. It was just to confirm what I already knew, that I was his dad.

I was sitting in my Senior engineering class when I got the email for the results on my phone. Excited to get my confirmation I open it right away. The results showed there was 0% I was the father. I just walked out and sat in my car and cried, I was devastated.

Apparently the mom had tricked me. The other guy’s timing wasn’t off and that one guy’s doctor telling him he couldn’t have kids was a lie. She just thought I was the best option and thought she could get me attached to the kid before I discovered he wasn’t mine.

I still loved the kid but the anger and bile I felt towards the mom was crippling. I just couldn’t forgive her. I had to say goodbye to them both.

It’s confusing because I can look back on that moment and recognize it was the happiest I had ever felt. But just thinking about it causes me immense pain. Even now 5 years later I’m having to wipe away tears as I write this.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment